[MD] Explanation and explanatory power

[david buchanan]

Marsha said to dmb:
 ...your motorcycle, like many of your arguments (see clear example below), is missing some major parts.
Marsha'a example: 



In the thread titled "Definitions", dmb said to Krimel:


...that's just a weird application of your scientific nihilism and it has nothing to do with Pirsig's refusal to define the MOQ's central term. Using "dog" interchangeably with "Quality" or the "Tao" would be provocative and edgy if it made any sense at all.  Let me see if I follow your reasoning here, Krimel. As I read it, you are saying,  A) Dogs and everything else, including definitions, cannot be defined any more than the indefinable, mystical reality can.  B) Therefore, you are not required to use words correctly or otherwise make sense when discussing philosophy.



dmb now replies to Marsha:

I don't know what "major parts" are missing from this "argument" but you should realize that it's not my argument. I was summarizing the argument made by Krimel and you, as it happens. I was mocking the bullshit argument that you and Krimel use to evade the, apparently overwhelming, responsibility of making sense. 

How delicious that you would mistake a parody of yourself for my bad argument. 

You have no business here, you confused troll.  Go away.